Talks between WPK and CPGB (ML) Held

Talks between WPK and CPGB (ML) Held

Pyongyang, September 23 (KCNA) -- Talks between the delegations of the Workers' Party of Korea and the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) were held in Pyongyang on Thursday. Present at the talks from the WPK side were Department Director Kim Yong Il and officials of the Central Committee of the WPK and the CPGB (ML) side members of the delegation of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) led by General Secretary Zane Carpenter. At the talks both sides informed each other of the activities of their parties and exchanged views on further developing the relations between the two parties and matters of mutual concern.

AUCPB Statement on DPRK foundation

THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (DPRK)

September 9, 1948 - National Foundation Day of the DPRK.
3 September 2003 - Re-election of Kim Jong Il to the chairmanship of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK
September 22, 1949 - Kim Jong Suk died - heroine of the anti-Japanese struggle, wife of the Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung, mother of Kim Jong Il. (Born December 24, 1917.)


Today, the DPRK (North Korea) celebrates the 62 - anniversary of its foundation by the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung. The people of the DPRK call their country "Kim Il Sung Korea."
The history of socialist Korea is a story of constant struggle for independence and an independent course of development, for social and economic progress. This is a grand story of creation, which began from zero, from the day of national liberation on August 15, 1945, and reached at this time, the heights of civilization, culture, education, high-capacity in the economy, science and defence deterrence, achieved in extremely difficult conditions of constant confrontation with the aggressive imperialist world led by the United States. The history of the DPRK is a history of building a socialist state relying only on its own strength, which makes a special tribute to the heroic labour of the people of the DPRK and its leaders - Comrade Kim Il Sung and Comrade Kim Jong Il. In the DPRK, everything is placed at the service of the peoples’ masses.
A highly developed society in all respects can be created only when the population is of a high-level of education, with a high degree of availability to each person to enjoy the achievements of human civilization. The first question on the agenda of the young newly born country in 1948 became the organization of public education, universal compulsory education, a network of primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities. As a result of the tremendous work in this direction, the country with a total of 12 people with higher education in August 1945, in a short period of history became a country of universal literacy, where training covers all segments of the population of all ages. Education in the DPRK is provided free: being universal compulsory 11-year, which includes a one-year compulsory pre-school, 4 years of primary and 6-years of secondary education. This system was introduced in 1972. Students of colleges and universities receive a scholarship. Uniforms for school pupils and students are provided free by the state. (And look how much it costs to equip the current first-graders at a school here (in Britain - FB) and in bourgeois Russia, Ukraine and the other now bourgeois republics of the former socialist Soviet Union? And do all the children in those countries have the opportunity to study in school? Education in the former USSR is now gradually becoming fee-paying, not to mention studying at university.) In the DPRK state budget, spending on education is increasing, accounting for a large share of the budget. Education in the DPRK is now coming to the stage of higher education for the entire population.
National cadres, trained by their own strengths, play a leading role in science, economic management and the state ... The DPRK carefully relates to its 5-thousand year old country's history, developing distinctive Korean culture.
A lot of attention is paid by the state and the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK) to public health.
Recently, in the sphere of health, a network system of health care based on modern scientific and technological achievements has been established. Computer diagnosis using fiber optics, ensure timely diagnosis of disease and disease prevention by skilled people, even in the most remote areas from the capital of the country.
Housing issues are also always in the spotlight of the Party and State. Everywhere there is construction of new housing and renovation of housing already in use. This concerns not only the capital and cities, but also the counties.
The hailed by the Party slogan of the general offensive on the issue of building a mighty economic power is embodied in the construction of large hydroelectric power stations (for example, Hichhonskaya HES put into operation in just a few months instead of the planned 10 years) in the modernization of production processes based on digital program control in factories and plants, in the introduction into service of new giants of the chemical industry (such as vinalon plant in Hamhung), in applying the new technology of gasification of anthracite in the production of fertilizers at the Namhysk Chemical Association "Youth", in developing new technology for converter smelting of cast iron without the use of coke at the Sonchzhin steel plant. There are many such examples in today's socialist Korea.
It always has been and remains the focus of the Party and the state in providing people with quality food and sturdy household items. Exhibitions of achievements of the national economy for a wide selection and implementation of new high quality products are held. There is continuing large-scale reconstruction of fields in agriculture for the use of mechanical tillage and crop removal, to realize new high-yield varieties of crops. Work widely carried out on the development of fisheries in agricultural cooperatives. The work goes on everywhere with enthusiasm in the wake of a new great revolutionary upsurge in the construction of a powerful socialist nation.
The state ideology of the DPRK is a communist ideology of Juche, the state policy - the policy of Songun. The DPRK is developing intensively.
In recent years, thanks to the development of domestic science in the field of space and nuclear technology, the DPRK launched into space two artificial earth satellites and built a nuclear weapon, becoming a world's nuclear power - a strong deterrent against any machinations of imperialism to wage war on the Korean peninsula, and thus - a third world war .
On appeal in 2009, by the great leader Comrade Kim Jong Il, the whole nation is taking an active part in the general offensive on the country's transition to the level of a powerful and prosperous power in 2012, the year of the 100 anniversary of the birthday of President Kim Il Sung.
Great work all over the country is being carried out directly under the leadership of Comrade Kim Jong Il, re-elected to the highest post of the DPRK - Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK – on September 3, 2003. His constant travel around the country, to factories, agricultural cooperatives, to military units are evidence of his direct close contact with people, and make him a popular military leader, firmly and confidently leading his country to the heights of socialist advanced nations who are not afraid of any obstacle. It is hard to imagine the DPRK today without Kim Jong Il. He is the brain of the Party and State, an experienced military strategist and a gifted practitioner in the most severe battle against world imperialism, always winning victory in this confrontation between unequal forces. His work, successes in the development of the country, and its prestige in the international arena speak of the authority and majesty of the Leader. Therefore, the people assigning him the status as - Great - is recognition of his contribution in leading the state and concern for the welfare of the people.
We congratulate Kim Jong Il, on the 62-anniversary of the forming of the DPRK by Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung. On this auspicious occasion, we congratulate the leading staff of the Korean revolution and the heroic Korean people.
We also congratulate Kim Jong Il, on the the 7-th anniversary of his re-election to the highest state post in the DPRK - Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK.
On September 22, 1949 untimely passed away the wife and close friend of Kim Il Sung, the mother of Kim Jong Il, anti-Japanese heroine Kim Jong Suk.
We bow our heads before the memory of her and her heroic life, entirely devoted to her people.

CC AUCPB

To Pyongyang on the occasion of anniversaries, in the name of the great leader Comrade Kim Jong Il, telegrams have been sent by the General Secretary of Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (CC AUCPB) N.A. Andreeva

FOR THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION AND DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT

Despite all attempts by the bourgeois regimes to bring the labour movement to its knees, despite all their applied repression, workers and working people are rising up to fight for their rights.
In this issue we publish materials from Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, on the unfolding struggle.
Especially interesting are the letters of young readers of our newspapers, including political prisoners. Political prisoners from the "Odessa case" have not given up, have not broken, have not betrayed their communist beliefs. They, from the torture chambers continue their publicist, ideological, moral fight –- to defend their communist beliefs and ideals that call for working people not to give up and fight for the overthrow of the power of capital.
Noteworthy is the article of our reader Vikhrev about events in Primorye. And in this context I would like to learn from the experience of our Leninist party, the experience of the revolution of 1905-1907, when Lenin and the Bolsheviks paid much attention to the question of armed struggle in general and the partisan struggle in particular.
Analyzing the “Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” (works, vol.13, pp. 369-377, August 1906 - Russian) – of the December armed uprising in Moscow in 1905, - and the reasons for his defeat, Lenin noted that the general strike as an independent and main form of struggle, had outlived its usefulness, what with the spontaneous, irresistible force coming out of these narrow confines and producing the highest form of struggle, the uprising. "The strike grew into an uprising, especially under the pressure of the objective conditions" (p. 370). "From the strikes and demonstrations to individual barricades. From individual barricades to massive construction of barricades and street fighting with the army. Over the head of organizations, mass proletarian struggle crossed over from strike to uprising. In this, lies the greatest historic gain of the Russian Revolution reached by December 1905, the gain, bought, as in all the previous ones, at the price of enormous sacrifices "(p.370-371). "And now we must, finally, openly and publicly recognize the inadequacy of political strikes, to agitate among the broadest masses for armed insurrection ... To hide from the masses the need for a desperate, bloody, destructive war as the immediate task of impending action, means, to deceive oneself, and the people"(p.372). "... The inevitable wavering of troops, whatever the true people's movement, leads under the aggravation of the revolutionary struggle to a true struggle for winning over the troops. The Moscow uprising shows us exactly the most desperate, most furious fighting of reactionary power and the revolution for winning over the support of the army"(p. 372). Lenin, analyzing the causes of the defeat of the December armed uprising, reminds the revolutionaries of Marx's words, "who wrote that insurrection is an art and that the main rule of this art –is the desperately brave, final, decisive assault" (p.374). "We should ring all the bells on the need for a bold offensive and attack with weapons in hand, on the need for extermination with this, of the commanders, and the most energetic struggle for the wavering troops "(p.374). "Moscow - Lenin notes – put forth "new barricade tactics." These tactics were the tactics of guerrilla warfare. The organization, using such tactics would be mobile and very small detachments of tens, triples, or even two people "(p.374-375). Lenin went on to note that Moscow put forward a new tactic of guerrilla warfare, but did not develop it. "Vigilantes were insufficient in numbers, the mass of workers had not received the slogan of bold attacks and did not use it, the nature of guerrilla units was too fixed, their weapons and their methods inadequate, their ability to lead a crowd was almost undeveloped" (p.375). “Social-Democracy (Communists-FB) must recognize and adopt as their tactics this mass terror, of course, organizing and controlling it, subordinating it to the interests and conditions of the labour movement and the general revolutionary struggle ... "(p. 375). The heroic struggle of several thousand armed Moscow workers lasted 9 days. Tsarism sent troops into Moscow, many times higher in strength than the rebel forces, had used artillery against the barricade and drowned the uprising in blood. The Moscow Committee of Bolsheviks was arrested, and the rebels did not have a single centre, fought piecemeal and limited themselves to defence. This was the main source of weakness of the Moscow uprising and one of the reasons for his defeat (material from the History of the CPSU (b), OGIZ, Gospolitizdat, 1945, p. 79). Lenin, in the above work, notes that "military tactics depends on the level of military equipment - Engels chewed upon this truth and put it into the mouth of Marxists." (p.374). The Bolsheviks after the defeat of the Moscow uprising did not lost heart. They believed that there was an impending new wave of armed struggle and proposed to prepare for it more carefully, prepare weapons and to really confront the armed to the teeth, Tsar’s punitive forces, called on them step up the fight to win over the wavering troops, which mainly consisted of peasants dressed in soldiers' uniforms. "We can and must take advantage of improving technology, to teach the workers’ detachments to make bombs en-mass, to help them and our fighting squads to stock up explosives, fuses and automatic rifles. With the participation of the working masses in the urban uprising, with a mass attack on the enemy with a strong skillful fight for winning over the army, which will waver even more ..., ensuring the participation of the countryside in the common struggle - victory will be ours in the next all-Russian armed uprising" (p.376 ).
Lenin ends this work on an optimistic note with a deep faith in the creative forces of the revolutionary working class, - "Let us remember that the great mass struggle is nearing. This will be an armed uprising. It should be, if possible, at the same time. The masses must know that they are going on an armed, bloody, desperate struggle. Contempt for death must be spread among the masses and ensure victory. The attack on the enemy must be the most vigorous; attack and not defence should be the slogan of the masses, the ruthless extermination of the enemy – will be their task; the organization of the struggle will be developed mobile and flexible; the wavering elements among troops will be drawn into active struggle. The party of the politically conscious proletariat must fulfil its duty in this great struggle (p.376-377).
Lenin devoted questions on guerrilla action in his special work "The Guerrilla War" (PSS, v.14, p.1-12, September 1906). Speaking of forms of struggle, Lenin noted that, firstly, "Marxism is different from all the primitive forms of socialism in that it does not connect the movement of any one particular form of struggle. He recognizes a variety of forms of struggle, does not "invent" them, but merely summarizes, organizes, gives consciousness to those forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes, which arise of themselves in the course of the movement "(p. 1). "Marxism in this respect is learning, so to speak, from mass practice, far from the claims to teach the masses invented "forms of struggle" by armchair" systematists (p. 2).
"Secondly, Marxism demands an absolutely historical consideration of the question on forms of struggle" (p. 2). "At different stages of economic evolution, depending on various political, national, cultural, domestic conditions etc., various forms of struggle are put forward and become the principal forms of struggle, and in connection with this, in turn, secondary and less important forms of struggle are modified, "(p. 2).
"Armed struggle pursues two different objectives ... this struggle is aimed, firstly, to the murder of individuals, superiors and subordinates in the military and police - and secondly, to confiscate the funds from government and private entities. Confiscated funds go to the party, part of it goes towards the armament and preparation of the uprising, and part of it towards the maintenance of those leading the struggle characterized by us"(p. 4). "The worsening political crisis to the point of armed struggle and in particular the worsening poverty, hunger and unemployment in villages and towns have played a major role among the reasons for the described form of struggle" (p. 4). "The spreading of the "guerilla" struggle namely after December and its connection with the aggravation of not only the economic but also political crisis are obvious. Old Russian terrorism used to be the affair of the intellectual-conspirator, but now the guerrilla struggle is carried out, as a general rule, by a worker-fighter or simply an unemployed worker "(p.5-6).
"Guerrilla struggle is an inevitable form of struggle at a time when the mass movement is actually ready for an uprising, and when enter more or less large intervals between "major battles" in a civil war" (p.7).
"A Marxist stands on the class struggle, and not on social peace. In certain periods of acute economic and political crises, the class struggle develops to outright civil war, i.e. armed struggle between two sections of the people "(p.8). "In the era of civil war, the ideal party of the proletariat is a belligerent party "(p.8). And Lenin concludes: "It should learn to fight" (p.9).
“In such an era, in an era of nation-wide political strikes, the uprising cannot be moulded into the old form of individual acts, limited by very short time and very small areas. It is natural and inevitable that the revolt takes higher and more complex forms of a continual civil war covering the whole country, i.e. armed struggle between the two sections of the people "(p.11).
"Social-Democracy (communists -FB) must necessarily set its goal of the establishment of such organizations, which would be most able to lead the masses in these large-scale battles and, if possible, in small skirmishes. Social democracy (communists) in an era of intensified class struggle up and to civil war, should set itself the task of not only participation, but also the leadership role in this civil war. Social democracy (communists) must educate and prepare their organizations to ensure that they really act as a belligerent party, and not to miss a single opportunity to inflict damage on enemy forces" (p.11).
The Draft resolution “guerrilla fighting operations”, as proposed by the Bolsheviks to the IV (amalgamating) Congress of the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) (April 1906) was written precisely in the Leninist revolutionary spirit. The Congress however, where the majority were Mensheviks had adopted the more subdued version of the Resolution. But on the V (London) RSDLP Congress (April-May 1907), when it became clear that the revolution had subsided, the Bolsheviks in the draft resolution to Congress “About guerrilla actions" wrote: "At the moment, in the absence of conditions for a mass revolutionary upheaval, guerrilla actions are undesirable and congress recommends an ideological struggle with them, and that it is also permissible under the conditions of mass revolutionary struggle, guerrilla performances can be carried out only at the initiative of local party committees, with the permission of the regional centres, and under their strict control. A system of party militia, which consists of military training for all party members within the existing party cells are a form of combat organizations, with the most appropriate task of training the militant vanguard of the proletariat for an armed uprising, (CPSU in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and Central Committee Plenums, Moscow, Politizdat, 1983 , Volume 1, s.254-255).

A. MAYEVSKY

--
Posted By -- to THE AUCPB - FOR SOCIALIST REVOLUTION AND THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT on 9/21/2010 01:18:00 A

ON THE QUESTIONS OF THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION FROM CAPITALISM TO SOCIALISM AND THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT-KIM IL SUNG

ON THE QUESTIONS OF THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION FROM CAPITALISM TO SOCIALISM AND THE DICTATORSHIP
OF THE PROLETARIAT


Speech Delivered to Party Ideological Workers
May 25, 1967


Recently, while studying documents of the Party Conference some scholars and others responsible for ideological work have put forward diverse opinions on the questions of the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat. In particular, following the publication of an essay on these questions, opinion was all the more divided. So, I studied the data on the subject, exchanged views with scholars, and gave a short summary. But those who heard my views interpreted and conveyed them to others in their own way, with the result that they were distorted in many respects. Since the subject under discussion relates to the documents of the Party Conference, it is a very important matter and can in no way be neglected. I will therefore deal with it in some detail.
Like all other scientific and theoretical problems, the questions of the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat must also be solved from our Party’s Juche viewpoint. You should neither cling to propositions of the classics and try to settle the questions dogmatically nor be enthralled by the ideas of flunkeyism and try to interpret the issues as others do. Judging from the written opinions of several scholars and from other essays, almost all comrades either interpret the propositions dogmatically or tend to flunkeyism and attempt to follow the thinking of other countries. Consequently, they advance these subjects in a direction which is entirely different from that of our Party. You cannot study problems and solve them correctly in such a way. You can only arrive at a correct conclusion if you use your own faculties to do so, free from flunkeyism and dogmatism.
Let us deal first with the problem of the transition period.
To explain the issue correctly, it is necessary first of all to consider in what historical circumstances and on what premises the classics, particularly Marx, advanced this question.
Firstly, as we see it, Marx obviously had in mind the developed capitalist countries when he laid down his definition of socialism and formulated the question of the period of transition from capitalism to communism or to socialism. I think we must be fully aware of this fact at the outset if we want to find a correct solution to this question.
What, then, are the developed capitalist countries we have referred to? They consist of those countries where both rural and urban areas have become completely capitalistic and capitalist relations predominate throughout society, with the result that peasants no longer exist but there are agricultural labourers, side by side with the industrial labourers. Marx had this kind of developed capitalist country in mind when he put forward his theory, and England, which he had visited and where he had lived and worked, was precisely such a country. In formulating the question of the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, therefore, Marx assumed first of all a condition in which no class distinction existed between the working class and the peasantry, and he proceeded from that.
Now, to cite the instance of the most developed capitalist countries of modern times, their productive forces have become so highly developed as to make even the countryside fully capitalistic and, as a result, the working class is the only labouring class both in town and country. In a certain capitalist country there are tens of thousands of farms, all of which are very highly mechanized. Not only is this so, but the electrification, irrigation and extensive use of chemicals in the countryside are also on a very high level. Thus, it is said, one agricultural labourer can look after 30 hectares of land in that country. What does this mean? It means not only that no class distinction actually exists between the working class and the peasantry but also that the agricultural and industrial productive forces are almost on the same level. The only difference, if any, lies in the working conditions of the industrial labourer in the factory and the agricultural labourer on the farm.
That is why Marx thought that the stage of transition to socialism following the seizure of power by the proletariat in those developed capitalist countries would cover a comparatively short period. In other words, he believed that because there were only two classes in society, the capitalists and the workers, the tasks of the transition period could be carried out in a relatively short period of time and that it would be possible to pass quickly to the higher phase of communism, once the capitalist class was crushed and dispossessed and its property turned over to the ownership of the whole people in the course of the socialist revolution. Yet Marx did not say that it would be possible to progress to communism directly from capitalism, without going through the stage of socialism. No matter how highly the productive forces may have developed and how completely the class distinction between the working class and the peasantry may have disappeared, it is essential to solve the tasks of the transition period before advancing further. These tasks include liquidating the remaining forces of the exploiter classes and eliminating the survivals of the old ideologies in the minds of people. We must first of all take account of this point.
The second point is the Marxist view of the uninterrupted revolution, which we must take into consideration in studying Marx’s theory on the transition period and in expounding this question correctly.
As you all know, Marx lived in the era of premonopoly capitalism, so that he could not clearly see the imbalance in the political and economic development of capitalism. Therefore, he believed that the proletarian revolution would break out almost simultaneously in the major capitalist countries of Europe and that the world revolution would triumph relatively soon. Proceeding from such premises, Marx assumed that the period of transition from capitalism to socialism would be a comparatively short historical epoch, and he stated that the dictatorship of the proletariat would exist only during the time of the transition period, that is, these two could never be divorced. We must also take account of this point.
We can say that Lenin also followed the Marxist standpoint in the main, when he raised the questions of the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Unlike England or Germany where Marx had lived and worked, Lenin’s Russia was of course not at all advanced, but was a backward though nevertheless capitalist country. Consequently, Lenin considered that the stage of socialism, the transitional stage, would be relatively long and not short as Marx had theorized.
But Lenin, too, following the Marxist view, said that a society where the working class had overthrown the capitalist system and seized power but where class distinction still remained between the workers and the peasants, was a transitional society being not yet communist nor fully socialist. He further said that in order to implement total socialism, it would not be enough to merely smash the capitalists as a class; the distinction between the workers and the peasants would also have to be eliminated. Thus it was that Lenin finally considered the period up to the establishment of a classless society-where there would be no distinction between the working class and the peasantry following the overthrow of the capitalist class by the working class-to be the period of transition from capitalism to socialism or the period of transition to communism. I think that such a definition of the transition period is fundamentally correct.
But the problem is that our comrades interpret the propositions of Marx and Lenin dogmatically, without taking into consideration the times and historical circumstances in which they were formulated and, above all, they think the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat coincide with and are inseparable from each other.
It is true that the period of transition from capitalism to socialism or communism will only end when a classless society with no distinction between the working class and the peasantry emerges following the overthrow of the capitalist class. It can also be taken for granted that should the socialist revolution take place consecutively in all countries and the revolution emerge victorious on a worldwide scale, the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat would coincide with each other, and with the termination of the transition period, the dictatorship of the proletariat would also cease to exist and the disappearance of the state would follow.
And yet, if socialism has been founded and a classless society has been established in one country or in certain areas, the transition period should be regarded as terminated there even though the revolution has not brought victory on a worldwide scale. As long as capitalism remains in the world, however, the dictatorship of the proletariat will not vanish, and we cannot even talk about the disappearance of the state. Therefore, in order to find a correct solution to the questions of the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat, we ought not to cling dogmatically to the propositions of Marx or Lenin, but proceed from the practical experiences in socialist construction in our country to consider the questions.
At present, certain people accept the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, but do not appreciate, in any sense, the concept of the period of transition from capitalism to communism, that is to say, the period of transition to the higher phase of communism. However, they use the expression: gradual transition from socialism to communism.
It is the deviation of the Right opportunists to regard the transition period as the period from the seizure of power by the working class to the victory of the socialist system, and to suppose that the historical mission of the proletarian dictatorship will end with the termination of the transition period, equating the transition period and the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat to each other. Therefore, people with such a viewpoint say that following the attainment of the complete and final victory of socialism, which is the first phase of communism, and with the transition to the all-out construction of communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat has fulfilled its historical mission and is thus no longer necessary. This is a Right opportunist view, which is entirely contradictory to Marxism-Leninism.
What, then, is the “Left” opportunist view? Those who have the “Left” view used to regard the question of the transition period exactly in the same light as those who have the Right opportunist view, but, proceeding from their standpoint that communism can be realized some generations later, they contend that the transition period should be regarded as the period of transition from capitalism to the higher phase of communism. By doing this they apparently mean to criticize Right opportunism. It is all very well to criticize the Right deviations; but we cannot consider such views on the question of the transition period to be correct.
As mentioned above, it is clear that all these people alike have fallen into deviations in viewing the questions of the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
We think the transition period can either be called the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, or the period of transition from capitalism to communism, because socialism is the first phase of communism. But the trouble is that some of our comrades, bewitched by flunkeyism, either regard the transition period as the period from capitalism to the higher phase of communism following the “Left” opportunist view or regard it as the period up to the victory of socialism following the Right opportunist view.
Therefore, the point at issue concerning the transition period is not a terminological matter of whether it is the transition to socialism or to communism, but rather the question of where to draw the dividing line of the transition period. Many people, having made a muddle of determining this line, are now confused and have created various problems. Both of the dividing lines, drawn by those with either the Right or the “Left” view, are incorrect.
By the higher phase of communism is meant not only a classless •society where there is no distinction between the workers and the peasants, but also a highly advanced society where there is no distinction between mental and physical labour and each member of society works according to his ability and receives according to his needs. So, it is, in fact, tantamount to drawing no dividing line at all to regard the transition period as the period extending up to such a higher phase of communism. Some people not only regard the transition period as a period right up to period and the dictatorship of the proletariat would coincide with each other, and with the termination of the transition period, the dictatorship of the proletariat would also cease to exist and the disappearance of the state would follow.
And yet, if socialism has been founded and a classless society has been established in one country or in certain areas, the transition period should be regarded as terminated there even though the revolution has not brought victory on a worldwide scale. As long as capitalism remains in the world, however, the dictatorship of the proletariat will not vanish, and we cannot even talk about the disappearance of the state. Therefore, in order to find a correct solution to the questions of the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat, we ought not to cling dogmatically to the propositions of Marx or Lenin, but proceed from the practical experiences in socialist construction in our country to consider the questions.
At present, certain people accept the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, but do not appreciate, in any sense, the concept of the period of transition from capitalism to communism, that is to say, the period of transition to the higher phase of communism. However, they use the expression: gradual transition from socialism to communism.
It is the deviation of the Right opportunists to regard the transition period as the period from the seizure of power by the working class to the victory of the socialist system, and to suppose that the historical mission of the proletarian dictatorship will end with the termination of the transition period, equating the transition period and the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat to each other. Therefore, people with such a viewpoint say that following the attainment of the complete and final victory of socialism, which is the first phase of communism, and with the transition to the all-out construction of communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat has fulfilled its historical mission and is thus no longer necessary. This is a Right opportunist view, which is entirely contradictory to Marxism-Leninism.
What, then, is the “Left” opportunist view? Those who have the “Left” view used to regard the question of the transition period exactly in the same light as those who have the Right opportunist view, but, proceeding from their standpoint that communism can be realized some generations later, they contend that the transition period should be regarded as the period of transition from capitalism to the higher phase of communism. By doing this they apparently mean to criticize Right opportunism. It is all very well to criticize the Right deviations; but we cannot consider such views on the question of the transition period to be correct.
As mentioned above, it is clear that all these people alike have fallen into deviations in viewing the questions of the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
We think the transition period can either be called the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, or the period of transition from capitalism to communism, because socialism is the first phase of communism. But the trouble is that some of our comrades, bewitched by flunkeyism, either regard the transition period as the period from capitalism to the higher phase of communism following the “Left” opportunist view or regard it as the period up to the victory of socialism following the Right opportunist view.
Therefore, the point at issue concerning the transition period is not a terminological matter of whether it is the transition to socialism or to communism, but rather the question of where to draw the dividing line of the transition period. Many people, having made a muddle of determining this line, are now confused and have created various problems. Both of the dividing lines, drawn by those with either the Right or the “Left” view, are incorrect.
By the higher phase of communism is meant not only a classless society where there is no distinction between the workers and the peasants, but also a highly advanced society where there is no distinction between mental and physical labour and each member of society works according to his ability and receives according to his needs. So, it is, in fact, tantamount to drawing no dividing line at all to regard the transition period as the period extending up to such a higher phase of communism. Some people not only regard the transition period as a period right up to the higher phase of communism, but also say that it is impossible to bring about communism in one country only. They say that we will enter communism only when the world revolution is consummated. According to this view, the transition period cannot end before the world revolution is completed. These people interpret the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat as corresponding to each other, regarding the former as the period up to the higher phase of communism, while people with the Rightist standpoint consider the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat as coinciding with each other, regarding the former as the period up to the point of victory of socialism. In our opinion, this is an extreme opinion.
It is also questionable that people holding Rightist views regard the transition period as the period up to the victory of the socialist revolution. This viewpoint stems from the ideological view of abandoning the class struggle against survivors of the overthrown exploiter classes internally, and internationally refraining from the world revolution, by choosing to live at peace with imperialism. Moreover, they claim that the dictatorship of the proletariat will disappear when the transition period comes to an end. But how can this be? They are fundamentally wrong.
It will not do, therefore, to follow mechanically what is set by those who hold the Rightist views, or to take as a model what is set by those holding the “Leftist” views.
We must firmly establish Juche and settle problems from the practical experience which we have gained in the revolution and construction of our country.
As already mentioned, the questions of the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat as defined by the classics were perfectly correct under the historical circumstances of their times and the premises they had developed from.
However, our present situation demands that we develop them creatively and not simply apply them without full consideration. We carried out the socialist revolution under conditions where we had taken over the very backward productive forces of a colonial agrarian country, and are building socialism under circumstances where capitalism still exists as a considerable force in the world.
We must take these specific realities into account in order to give correct solutions to the questions of the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Bearing this point in mind, I consider it to be incorrect to regard the transition period in our country as the period up to the higher phase of communism, and deem it right to regard it rather as the period up to socialism. But it is wrong to believe that the transition period will come to an end as soon as the socialist revolution has triumphed and the socialist system is established. Considering the issue either on the basis of what the founders of Marxism-Leninism said or in the light of the experiences we have gained in our actual struggles, we cannot say that a complete socialist society has already been built just because the capitalist class has been overthrown and the socialist revolution carried through after the working class seized power, Therefore, we have never said that the establishment of the socialist system means the complete victory of socialism.
When will the complete socialist society ever come into being? Complete victory of socialism will come only when the class distinction between the working class and the peasantry has disappeared and the middle class, particularly the peasant masses, actively support us. As long as the peasants are not working-classized, the support they may give us cannot be firm and is bound to be rather unstable.
The seizure of power by the working class is only the beginning of socialist revolution. To build a complete socialist society the revolution must be steadily advanced and a firm material basis of socialism laid. I have already stressed this time and again in my reports and speeches. Nevertheless, some of our comrades, because of their flunkeyist mentality, have not studied the documents of our Party properly but have shown a great deal of interest in what others have said. They are very wrong.
We must base ourselves on the situation as it is today and take a correct view of all questions from there. Because our country did not go through a capitalist revolution, its productive forces are very backward, and the division between the working class and the peasantry will have to remain for a very long time, even after the socialist revolution. In fact, there are only a few highly developed capitalist countries in the world today. Most countries are backward, and were formerly colonies or semi-colonies like our country, or are still dependent on others. In such countries the construction of a classless society and the consolidation of socialism are possible only by developing the productive forces for a comparatively longer period even after the socialist revolution.
As we did not go through the normal course of capitalist development, we have the task of developing the productive forces in our socialist era-a task which we should have tackled under capitalism. There is no need to make society capitalistic and go to the trouble of fostering the capitalists just to smash them and then build socialism, on the basis that we could not discharge the task which we should have completed in the capitalist stage. The working class in power should not revive capitalist society, but should carry out this task under the socialist system which it could not tackle in the stage of capitalist revolution, in order to build a classless society.
We must continue to consolidate the material basis of socialism and boost the productive forces at least to the level of developed capitalist countries, and completely eliminate the distinction between the working class and the peasantry. To this end, the technical revolution must be carried out to the extent that the developed capitalist countries have turned their countryside capitalistic, so that farming can be mechanized, irrigation and the greater use of chemicals can be introduced, and the eight-hour day adopted.
It was precisely for this purpose that we published the theses on the socialist rural question. But, our comrades do not even study the theses properly. We must always solve problems through our own knowledge, drawing on our Party documents. What is the central idea of the Theses on the Socialist Rural Question in Our Country? The basic idea is to carry out the technical revolution in the rural areas and develop the agricultural productive forces to a high level. At the same time, it seeks to promote the ideological and the cultural revolution and gradually abolish the differences between the working class and the peasantry in the spheres of technology, ideology and culture, and bring cooperative property up to the level of property of all the people.
And these tasks cannot be realized unless the working class gives guidance and assistance to the peasantry. It is our Party’s line to give material and technical assistance to the peasants and carry out the technical revolution in the rural areas by relying on the solid basis of industry. To this end, large numbers of tractors have to be provided for the countryside, fertilizer and agricultural chemicals should be supplied in quantity to increase their use, and irrigation should also be carried out. At the same time, the working class must help the peasantry in their ideological remoulding and also exert a cultural influence on them. Only in this way can the peasantry be completely working-classized.
To turn the peasantry into the working class is, in fact, one of the most important questions in building socialism and communism. In this way we will working-classize the peasants and abolish the distinction between them and the working class.
We should not adopt flunkeyism, but ought to hold fast to our Party’s stand of Juche in solving the question of working-classizing the peasantry. We must develop the productive forces to a higher level, get rid of the disparity between town and country and raise the people’s living standards by putting into effect the spirit of the theses and laying the firm material basis of socialism.
Only by doing this can we win over the former middle class completely. We cannot say socialism has been consolidated or consider it has won a complete victory until the middle class stops hesitating and supports us fully. Only when they actively support us, can we say that socialism has been completely accomplished. When we advance socialist construction and thoroughly win over the middle class to our side, when we eliminate the distinction between the working class and the peasantry and build a classless society, we shall be able to say that the tasks of the period of transition from capitalism to socialism have been accomplished.
I consider it right to draw the dividing line for the transition period at the border of the classless society, unlike those who are biased to the Right or to the “Left”.
What, then, shall we say is the society which will exist, after the triumph of the socialist revolution and the accomplishment of socialist transformation, until the disappearance of class distinction between the working class and the peasantry? It can only be called a socialist society, since it is a society free from exploitation even though it undoubtedly belongs to the transition period.
Needless to say, the end of the transition period will not immediately be followed by the higher phase of communism. Even after the close of the transition period, the revolution and construction must be continued and the productive forces developed to such a level that every individual works according to his ability and each receives according to his needs, in order to enter the higher phase of communism.
In my opinion, this approach to the question of transition period accords with the definitions laid down by Marx and Lenin, and it proceeds from the new historical conditions as well as the practical experience of the revolution and construction in our country. This is a preliminary and not a final conclusion reached by us. It is desirable that you make further studies in this direction.
Having given such a definition of the period of transition, how should we view the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat? The classics, as already mentioned, understood that the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat would coincide. Then, if a classless society materializes and the complete victory of socialism is achieved in our country, i.e., if the tasks of the transition period are accomplished, will the dictatorship of the proletariat become no longer necessary? The answer to this is no. Even when the transition period is over, the dictatorship of the proletariat must be continued up to the higher phase of communism, to say nothing of its necessity during the entire period of transition.
Even after we have carried out the technical revolution in the rural areas, raised cooperative property to the level of property of the whole people, working-classized the peasantry and done away with the distinction between the working class and the peasantry by solidifying the material and technical basis of socialism and carrying into effect the theses on the socialist rural question, the level of our productive forces will not yet be high enough to apply the principle of communism that each works according to his ability and receives according to his needs. Therefore, it will be necessary to continue to build socialism and strive to realize communism. It is quite clear that these tasks cannot be fulfilled without the dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words, even when the transition period is over, the dictatorship of the proletariat will have to continue to exist until the higher phase of communism is attained.
But here is another question. What will become of the proletarian dictatorship once communism is realized in one country or certain areas while capitalism still exists in parts of the world? Even if communism was attained in one country or certain areas, that society would not be free from the menace of imperialism and the resistance of internal enemies who conspire with external enemies, because the world revolution has not yet been accomplished and capitalism and imperialism continue to exist. Under such circumstances, the state cannot disappear and the dictatorship of the proletariat must therefore remain in existence in the higher phase of communism. Inasmuch as we accept the theory that it is possible to build communism in a particular country or certain areas, it is entirely correct to view the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat separately in this way.
It is no revision of Marxism-Leninism on our part to consider the questions of the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat in this manner. It is our standpoint to apply the propositions of Marx and Lenin creatively to the new historical circumstances and the specific practices of our country. I think that this is the way to safeguard the purity of Marxism-Leninism against dogmatism and flunkeyism.
I am now going to say a few words about the question of the class struggle in connection with the dictatorship of the proletariat. As long as the class struggle exists, the dictatorship of the proletariat will exist, and this dictatorship is essential to the class struggle. The class struggle, however, takes various forms. At the stage of overthrowing capitalism this struggle differs in form from that after its overthrow. This has already been expressly set out in the documents of our Party. Many people, however, commit Right or “Left” errors, simply because they have no clear idea of this.
The class struggle at the stage of the socialist revolution is a struggle to liquidate the capitalists as a class, and the class struggle in socialist society is a struggle aimed at achieving unity and solidarity, and is by no means a class struggle waged between the members of that society at war with each other. In a socialist society the class struggle certainly exists, but it is carried on by means of cooperation for the purpose of achieving unity and solidarity. It goes without saying that our present ideological revolution is a class struggle; and it is also a form of class struggle to render assistance to the rural areas to working-classize the peasantry. Because the state of the working class aims, after all, at eliminating the peasants as a class and completing their working-classization through the supply of machines and chemical fertilizers and through providing them with irrigation works. Our class struggle is designed not only to working-classize the peasantry and terminate its existence as a class, but also to revolutionize the previous middle class including the intelligentsia and urban petty bourgeoisie and remould them on the pattern of the working class. This is the principal form of the class struggle we are now waging.
Also, within our social system subversive counter-revolutionary influences infiltrate from without and the survivors of the overthrown exploiter classes agitate within; so, the class struggle is necessary to suppress these counter-revolutionary activities.
In this way, there is, in a socialist society, a form of class struggle exercising dictatorship over both external and internal enemies, along with the basic form of class struggle which aims to revolutionize and remould the workers, peasants and working intellectuals through cooperation so as to achieve unity and solidarity.
In a socialist society, therefore, the class struggle does not disappear but continues in different forms. It is perfectly correct to consider the question of the class struggle in socialist society in this way.
In connection with this question, I should like to direct a few more words to the issue of revolutionizing the intellectuals. We cannot yet say that we have fully worked out the correct approach to this question. We once sent our intellectuals into factories to labour among the workers with a view to revolutionizing them. But it is doubtful if that is really a good system. We have cultivated the intellectuals because we want them to write, study science and technology or serve as teachers. If they were intended to work in factories, we should obviously have made them workers from the outset, instead of providing them with expensive training. So, this way, too, is not quite appropriate.
Of course, it is a good thing to bring the intellectuals close to the workers to learn from them their organization and fortitude as well as their devotion to the people they serve by their physical labour. But this is still far from being an adequate answer to the question of revolutionizing the intellectuals. Many of our writers have been to factories, and yet some of them made little progress in spite of all their work there. So, we cannot revolutionize the intellectuals merely by sending them to work in factories.
The important thing here is to make them strengthen their organizational life, including their participation in Party activities. At present, some of our intellectuals do not like the strengthening of Party and other organizational activities, and do not conscientiously take part in organizational life. They think that by strengthening their Party life and by taking part in organizational life they are losing their freedom.
Those cadres who neglect both their Party activities and Party study, also go against the Party’s policies. Even the Central Party School does not strengthen the Party life of its students, so that, after graduation, they cannot make the most of what they have learned and fail to work and live in a revolutionary way.
It is, therefore, of paramount importance in revolutionizing the intellectuals to make them take an active part in revolutionary organizational life. Above all, it is essential for them to strengthen Party-cell life, refrain from displaying their knowledge, and conduct Party study well to arm themselves with revolutionary ideas. Further, they should neither be afraid of being criticized nor be unwilling to criticize others; they should intensify criticism and self-criticism and strictly observe organizational discipline. This alone will help them revolutionize themselves. People should cultivate collectivist ideas in the course of their organizational life in the Party or any social organizations, and acquire the revolutionary spirit of receiving definite revolutionary assignments from their organizations and carrying them out without fail. The members of the Party and social organizations must clearly equip themselves with the Party’s policies and propagandize them, and should become the kind of revolutionaries who carry out their revolutionary tasks to the letter and in accordance with the Party’s policies. A revolutionary is a genuine communist. The communist has nothing to do with selfishness, which means serving one’s own interests alone. Revolutionaries must have the communist traits of working and living under the motto: “One for all and all for one”. They must temper themselves with the Party, class and popular spirit of serving the working class and all the people.
The intellectuals will become spoilt in the end, if they do not take an active part in all organizational life including that of the Party. There are many such instances. I should like to stress once again that both the old and new intellectuals should strengthen their activities in the Party and other institutions, in order to do away with their self-indulgent and petty-bourgeois mentalities and train themselves to become revolutionaries.
Today I have dwelt on the questions of the transition period and the dictatorship of the proletariat in considerable detail. I think this should be enough to give you a general idea of the questions raised in the course of studying the documents of the Party Conference.

FOR BOL;SHEVISM SEPTEMBER 2010

WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!

FOR BOLSHEVISM



ALL-UNION COMMUNIST PARTY OF BOLSHEVIKS (AUCPB) ВКПБ


FOR BOLSHEVISM-AUCPB website: http://aucpbenglishwebsite.blogspot.com or google in: for bolshevism-aucpb


No 9 (90) SEPTEMBER 2010


ON THE NATURE OF ZIONISM

I found on a website an article by Vladimir Andreyev entitled "The Truth about Zionism." I was happy, because that destructive role played by Zionism in the modern world, little is written about it by the Communists and this is unforgivable. And here we have the truth about Zionism. I thought, finally a Communist, a member of the RCWP (Russian Communist Workers’ Party), calling a spade a spade.
This is all the more necessary, because ZIONISM as the state ideology and policy of Israel, in equity should be again as in 1975, condemned by UN General Assembly as aggressive racism and a form of racial discrimination. For 60 years Israel has occupied Palestine and maintains a policy of state terrorism on the suffering of Arab land, exactly resembling Germany's fascism.
Although placing hopes on the UN is naive, because in 1991 it had abolished its decision. In recent decades, the credibility of this international organization has fallen sharply. The UN has become a handheld appliance for the U.S.A., the world imperialist gendarme. It got to the point that during the visit of the UN Secretary General to the Middle East on March 21, 2010, Israeli President Shimon Peres scolded Ban Ki-moon like a little boy for the allegedly loyal attitude of the UN towards "troublemaker" Iranian President Ahmadinejad ...
After reading the article my disappointment knew no bounds. Andreyev set out to - in whatever form he took to DEFEND ZIONISM. At first he warned readers not to believe the paraphrase from an article from the Large Soviet Encyclopedia, which says that "Zionism is a reactionary chauvinist ideology and policy of the Jewish bourgeoisie," and named "the characteristic features of Zionism as being militant chauvinism, racism, anti-Sovietism. He has reduced these assessments of Zionism to ordinary "horror stories", though they are the absolute truth.
Then he introduced us to the wise sayings of the first Israeli ambassador to the USSR, then Prime Minister Golda Meir. Do not forget to remember the good father of Zionism, Vladimir Jabotinsky, who Mussolini affectionately called a "Jewish fascist", and Ben Gurion dubbed him as "Vladimir Hitler." He sang the praises to the Israeli kibbutzim, “agricultural communes”, in which labour is perfectly organized, unlike the Soviet communes, in which "thick commies like to work less and get more ...”
The author even dragged Ber Borohov here, who headed in Poltava in the beginning of the XX century the Jewish "Marxist" organization Po'alei Zion "("Workforce"). And he dreamt, how the Jewish proletariat would move to an empty land (?) free from people, to create a "Jewish national enclave" and implement "socialist ideals". That’s why Zionism was initially alleged to be "socialist".
The magic of words played a cruel joke on the author. It saved him the necessity to analyze and dig to the bottom of the terrible phenomenon called "ZIONISM."
Hitler also headed the WORKER’S National Socialist Party. Was its program really desirable to the interests of the working class of Germany? Thus the Jewish "Bund" broke away from the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) in early XX century, and the Poltavian “Po'alei Zion” bore no relation to Marxism and did not serve the interests of the working class. It would not hurt the author-"communist" to get acquainted with Lenin's assessment of the pro-Zionist position of the Bundists.
True, very often latter-day "communists" do not feel the need for studying dialectical materialist logic. They do not study the classics of Marxism. They say that "they are obsolete" to cover up their political ignorance and laziness of the mind. They restrict themselves to sketches of surface phenomena and do not examine events in the concrete historical context. The class approach is not considered a major methodological tool in understanding social phenomena.
Marx and Engels are sometimes quoted, but their outstanding discoveries - the materialist conception of history, are not understood. But they prefer, mainly what is in vogue, being the idealistic treatises of Western "thinkers" and the beautifully speaking speakers of bourgeois publicists. And they are even proud of such an eclectic mishmash of ideas in their heads.
So it turns out these articles, where instead of the truth about Zionism, are its solid apologetics. Andreev in the article refers to statements of "good" Zionists. And they do not bother to think about the thoughts of Lenin on the false and reactionary Zionist ideas about "special Jewish people" and "the need for Jewish separateness", which are harmful and contrary to the interests of the proletariat, including the Jewish proletariat. (PSS., v. 8, p. . 74).
In his work "Critical Remarks on the National Question", Lenin insisted on the need for "an uncompromising struggle against the contamination of the proletariat with bourgeois nationalism, even the most refined. (PSS., v. 24, pp. 124) He writes: "Marxism is irreconcilable with nationalism, be it the most "fair", "clean", refined and civilized. Marxism advances in place of nationalism - internationalism, the merging of all nations in higher unity "(p.131).
Not useful for the author also is the article by Karl Marx "On the Jewish Question", where indeed the social ESSENCE OF ZIONISM is revealed.
Arguing with Bruno Bauer on the question of emancipation of Jews in Germany, Karl Marx wrote: "What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, selfishness. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Haggling. Who is his worldly God? Money. But in this case, the emancipation from haggling and money - hence, from practical, real Jewry - would be self-emancipation of our time. The organization of society, which would have the prerequisites of commercialism, and, consequently, the possibility of haggling eliminated – such organization of society would make the Jew impossible ... Thus, we find in Judaism a contemporary manifestation of the modern-day anti-social element, led to its current stage of historical development in which the Jews took in this bad direction, zealous participation. This element has reached a high stage of development at which it must necessarily disintegrate. The emancipation of the Jews in the endvalue is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry" (K. Marx and F. Engels, Collected Works, Vol. V. 1, pp. 408. Russian lang.)
Marx, one of the first, spoke of the significant impact of the Jews throughout the world. He cites the arguments of Bruno Bauer from the book "The Jewish question": "A Jew, who in Vienna is only tolerated, determines by his monetary authority, the fate of the whole empire. A Jew who may be disenfranchised in a small German state, decides the fate of Europe." And commenting on this passage with the words: "And this is not an isolated fact. The Jew emancipated himself in the Jewish manner, he emancipated himself not only because he had arrogated to himself the power of money, but also so that through him, MONEY has become a world power, and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of Christian nations" (ibid., pp. 409).
Marx drew attention to the transformation of Judaism into the ideology of the Jewish bourgeoisie. "Jewishness could not develop further as a religion, because the world-view of practical demands, by its nature is limited and confined to a few strokes." "What is in itself the foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical need, egoism." "MONEY IS THE JEALOUS GOD OF ISRAEL, before whom there should be no other god. Money deprecates all the gods of Man from the heights, and turns them into commodities.” "The god of the Jews was made secular, became the world's god. The promissory note is the true god of the Jew. His god is just an illusory bill of exchange "(ibid., pp. 410).
In his work, "The Sacred Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism", Marx stresses that in the XIX century, the Jewish bourgeoisie began to occupy key positions in the capitalist world. "The fate of France is determined not in the offices of the Tuileries, not under the arches of the House of Peers, not even under the arches of the Chamber of Deputies, but on the Paris Stock Exchange. The real ministers are not Guizot and Gishatel, but Rothschild, Fould and other bankers. They control the Ministry and the Ministry is concerned about only those people who are loyal to the regime and those who benefit by it running in elections."
People would be better to understand state bodies of power do not have the reins of power in capitalist countries. True power is not with the politicians, but with CAPITAL. The capitalist buys the politicians in the same way as journalists and lawyers, villas on the Mediterranean coast or fashionable European yacht clubs are bought...
Of course, not every person finds it so easy to understand what Zionism really is. Under the conditions of imperialist globalization, international Jewish capital holds in its hands not only most of the transnational corporations, but most of the media. Any criticism of the ideology of Zionism and Zionist policy qualifies as ANTI-SEMITISM.
Fear of possible accusations of anti-Semitism makes even the other "bashful" (or cowardly) communist leaders say that the aggressive policies of Israel against the Palestinian Arab people, reminiscent of a genocide – is a topic which few Russian citizens (or British ones –K.C.) believe to be vibrant." When it comes to citizens-philistines, what can be taken from them? Besides their own stomachs, nothing ever interests them.
If the GENOCIDE which the Israeli racists have been subjecting the indigenous population of Palestine to for the past 60 years is not perceived by the Communists as their pain, then how can they be Communists. Communists – are internationalists.
Do we really not have the highest example of proletarian internationalism? The founder of the International Workingmen's Association, Karl Marx, held under the scrutiny the revolutionary situation in France in 1848 and kept in touch with the Paris Commune in 1871. After its defeat, it was at his house that many Communards found shelter.
For many years he had connections with the Russian revolutionaries Herman Lopatin and Vera Zasulich. He followed articles by Chernyshevsky and Flerovsky. In 1879 he intently studied Narodnik Danielson’s report sent to him on Russian financial policy for fifteen years. In his personal library were 115 titles of Russian books. Herzen read "Prisons and exile” in Russian in the original. He did not consider Russia to be "far far away" country ...
It was not from the Communist position, but an ordinary common sense position that made even former U.S. President Jimmy Carter describe Israel's policies as an "APARTHEID system, where two peoples occupy a land, but are separated from each other, and where the Israelis completely dominate and suppress by violence, depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.”
Zionism is a terrible destructive force. In it are all the dogmas - false, unfounded and reactionary.
Who sees the “inextricable link of the Jews throughout the world"? None. Jews living in Russia, speak in Russian, many do not know any Hebrew or Yiddish. Jews in the U.S. are Americans. They speak English. French Jews do not utter a word of Hebrew. Assimilation has done its work. The Jews have no common territory, or single language.
Who today in his right mind accepts that "all Jews are brothers?” All Jews who are capitalists are enemies of the Jewish working people, like capitalists of any nationality are enemies of working people throughout the world. And this the ABC of Marxism.
Who, except the Zionists can accept the idea that Jews have some special "historical rights" to the "land of the Jewish ancestors? Yes, 700 years BC, that is almost 3,000 years ago there was a small kingdom of Judah, which then disappeared ... And now, when so much water has flowed, is there an Arab who has reconciled with the fact that he was forced to flee from the land where his ancestors lived, where he was born and raised?
So, what is Zionism? In the words of a Swedish journalist, a former Moroccan officer, Ahmed Rami - the voice of millions of Muslims all over the world. "ZIONISM is racism ... It is COLONIALISM ... It is IMPERIALISM ... It is the policy of repression and arrogance, as Zionist Israel has systematically violated all the principles and resolutions of the UN ... Zionism in its practice is strikingly similar to APARTHEID "... (Http://radioislam.org/russ/rami/5.htm)
Communists have nothing against this assessment, though Ahmed Rami is far from the ideas of communism. He did not understand any of Marxism, nor the socialist revolution of 1917 in Russia.
The leader of theoretical and practical Zionism, Ze'ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky's position of racism and colonialism openly deemed it NECESSARY to create a "national home" for Jews in Zion. He devoted his whole life to the development of Zionism, its defence and implementation. He did not accept the revolution in Russia in 1917. He advocated the "private economy", "private initiative” and private property. He rejected the class struggle, appealing for class peace and harmony. He believed the worker and the entrepreneur play the same role in the development of society. Whoever fights against private capital, is an enemy of the nation. He categorically disagreed with the slogan of the Communists - "Workers of all countries, unite!" The national was above the class.
He traveled to dozens of countries. In Russia and Poland, America and Germany, Britain and France - everywhere he campaigned passionately for Jews to leave everything and go to the "ancestral homeland". On the planet, everyone, Jews and non-Jews should understand that Eretz Yisrael (Israel) should be a Jewish state. The idea of a "Jewish majority" in the Promised Land was the motive of his life.
He preached the dogma - "EVERYTHING IS MINE", not agreeing even to admit that Arabs belong to at least three-quarters of the earth. "The Arabs must accept the situation as it is: the territory of Eretz Israel on both sides of the Jordan is intended for the Jewish state with a Jewish majority" - he said. (Joseph Nedava. Vladimir Jabotinsky: Milestones in life. Per. In Hebrew. Rostov-on-Don. 1998).
Back in 1908, he wrote that the creation of a Jewish state is the COLONIZATION of Arab lands. And it will lead to antagonism with the locals. History shows that the colonialists have never been met with open arms. The natives fiercely resisted in America, and will resist here. We must prepare for this. "Our country will be freed only by the sword" - he said.
The racist attitude of modern Israel is here in the words of Jabotinsky: "The settlement can only develop with the use of force, independent of the local population, protected by an iron wall that local people can not break ... We should not be afraid of the possibility that 900,000 people will leave the country "
Already in 1919 he created the organization of Jewish immigrants "Khagani" to "ensure the protection of settlers from the arbitrariness of the natives," as he called the indigenous Palestinian Arabs.
Later, speaking to young “Beitar”nationalists, he urged them to be "relentless", sung the praises of the "power of the fist" stood for "military training". "Learning to shoot" - he believed was a historical necessity. And did not cease to rejoice that he had saved the youth from the "red plague".
Later, out of the ranks of "Betar", the brainchild of Jabotinsky, rose bandit groups Etzel and Lehi, which after the adoption by the UN of the fateful decision to create the Jewish state of Israel in December 1947, began by terror to implement it.
They, 1 April 1948, in the village of Dir Yassin, massacred 245 unarmed Palestinians - men, women and children. The bodies were taken to a quarry and burned. Similar atrocities were committed in other towns. In 1948 alone, the Zionists had killed 100,000 Palestinians, both inside the country and abroad. The strangulation of the indigenous population of Gaza by continuing bombardments, blockades and starvation is still ongoing.
I do not know whether there was a Jewish Holocaust, but the Arabic holocaust today is there to see.
The ideas MILITARISM have become the driving spring of the aggressive policies of Israel. And terror has become its state policy.
The ideology and politics of Zionism naturally gives rise not only among Arabs but also among all freedom-loving humanity a feeling of protest and hatred of Israel, the occupiers and invaders.
Unfortunately, there is still no force that would be able to destroy Israeli fascism, as did the Red Army in World War II in the fight against German fascism. The Arab world is split. The international communist and workers' movement is riddled by opportunism and appeasement. There is no Communist International. The Communist Party of Israel is silent. Critical remarks by sane Jewish intellectuals in Europe and America in addressing Israeli barbarism are heard only neighbours on the couch by the TV ...
The military and political power of the Israeli and international Zionism can be withstood only by military and political force. Under the domination of the global imperialism, the only hope is for a global, well organized, national liberation and communist protest. The victory of the people in the liberation struggle in South Africa and the collapse of the apartheid regime inspires faith in the victory of the Palestinian people in the Middle East.
Lyubov PRIBYTKOVA, from Irkutsk, Russia
March 2010


CLASS STRUGGLES IN CAPITALIST COUNTRIES

Chronicle produced by editorial of the newspaper "Hammer and Sickle” (Serp I Molot)


To save the trillions of dollars of European bankers and capitalists, the ruling circles of the capitalist countries since the beginning of this year, launched an attack on the social rights of workers.
The global economic crisis is not over. Since the beginning of spring this year, it has again demonstrated its brutal grip. Some countries of Western Europe are on the brink of bankruptcy. In Greece, the budget deficit amounted to 14% of the gross domestic product, its liabilities far exceeded the country's capacity to repay foreign loans. A similar situation exists in Spain and Portugal. The EU and the IMF quickly issued loans to euro area countries amounting to 750 billion euros, requiring them to reduce social spending and guarantees. Capital seeks to solve problems on the backs of working people.
In Western European countries, they have begun to reduce social spending, wages, pensions and benefits, alongside their subsequent pay freezing and mass dismissals.
The rise in unemployment, cuts in social rights, especially hurt the workers and employees of the public sector - teachers, doctors, aviators and railway workers, according to representatives of almost all categories of workers. Once again the working class is at the forefront of political struggle. On the appeals of unions, hundreds of thousands of people have been involved in nation-wide strikes and taken to the streets of cities in Greece, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and other European countries. "In anticipation of the new reform, a response on the streets is vital. We, the workers are obliged to confront these measures. Always the same thing - people have to pay for the crisis, and we must resist this ", - say the demonstrators.
Here is a summary of the major class battles in the spring and early summer this year in Greece, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Britain.
Greece was plunged into ongoing since the beginning of the year general strikes and demonstrations by workers and employees, which sometimes were accompanied by clashes with the police turning into real street fighting.
Greek workers were protesting against the government's decision to sharply reduce the state budget spending. Pensions are being reduced by 40-50%, the salaries of civil servants – by at least 20%, increasing the retirement age to 67 years, and are raising taxes on the income of workers.
On 10 and 24 Feb-ruary – the two first general strikes by Greek workers and employees took place, organized by the country’s major trades unions. On Feb. 24 leading force of the strike were employees of Transport and Communication. All means of transport in the country came to a halt. Flights were canceled. Railways stopped. Teachers and health worker also went on strike. Schools and universities closed. In public hospitals doctors treated only emergency cases. Journalists joined the action and radio and television stopped working.
On March 5 – there was a 24-hour strike by PAME – Militant Workers Front.
On March 11 - the third general 24-hour strike. The strike involved 2,5 million Greeks - about half the working population. All air, rail, maritime communications, as well as public transport stopped working. Schools, universities and hospitals were closed. Among the strikers were air traffic controllers, port workers and coast guards, firefighters, bankers, garbage men, the judiciary and lawyers, the media, and in some cases police. In connection with the strike, local authorities and the state power company stopped working.
On April 21-22 – a 48-hour general strike PAME took place, joined by sailors of the port of Piraeus. Large multinational companies and factories were frozen, shopping malls, hotel complexes and the largest port of the country and Europe – Piraeus were closed.
April 26 saw the continuation of the strike of seamen of the port of Piraeus.
On May 20 - the fourth since the beginning of the year 24-hour general strike of the Greek workers and employees, which paralyzed the country.
On May 31, in the ports of the country went on a Panhellenic 24-hour strike of all categories of ships.
On June 3, Greek journalists and employees of public transport had a 24-hour strike.
On June 10, for 24 hours all passenger and freight trains in Greece were cancelled. Workers opposed the authorities' intentions to sell the 49% stake in the state railway company to pay off debts to bankers and the Greek capitalists.
29 June saw the fifth general 24-hour strike by Greek workers and employees. The Greeks protested the pension reform. 3 million people took part in the general strike. These were public-sector and municipalities workers, hospital staff, banks and courts. The strikers were joined by journalists. The transportation system of the country was completely paralyzed.
Spain was on the verge of disaster after Greece: a budget deficit of about 10% of GDP. Since June, civil servants salaries have been cut by 5%, and subsequently frozen. 13 thousand employees in the public sector fall under the reduction (now in Spain, the unemployment rate is 20%). Indexation of pensions will be abolished and retirement age increased.
On March 12 a mass workers' strike took place in protest against the policy of austerity. Overground and underground transportation stopped working. Airline pilots (airline Alitalia) and railway employees went out on strike. Shipping was terminated. On 13 March, in Rome was a huge demonstration of 200 thousand people.
On March 31 about 30% of passenger and freight trains were cancelled in Spain as a result of the trade unions declared a one-day strike of railway workers.
On June 8, Spain was plunged into a nationwide strike by public servants, organized by the country’s leading unions. Demonstrators opposed the government's decision to lower the wages of civil servants by 5%. In protests across the country participated 2,5 million people or 2 / 3 of all civil servants. In Madrid the workers blocked the buildings of ministries and roads. The strikers temporarily blocked the main street of the capital of the region, Barcelona, blocking it with burning tires.
In Bilbao, the largest city in the Spanish Basque country, demonstrations in some cases degenerated into clashes with police.
On June 28 began a three-day strike on the Madrid Underground which put the Spanish capital on the verge transport collapse.
Leading Spanish trades unions called for a general strike by workers and employees on September 29.
Portugal. The IMF prescribed a reduction of the budget deficit from 9.3% to 3% of GDP. According to the budget adopted on January 26, public sector employees should have their wages frozen, retirement age increased, and jobs in the public sector will be cut by 10% (unemployment rate in Portugal is more than 10%).
On March 4, a 24-hour strike of 500 thousand workers and employees of the public sector, protesting against government policies took place. It was organized by the coalition of trade unions “United front". Transport was stopped, schools and hospitals closed. The strike was also joined by employees of the courts, taxation and customs, as well as refuse collectors. The action was attended by 80% of public sector workers.
On March 23, by call of a union, 10 thousand railways employees struck. The strike paralyzed much of the rail transport, both passenger and freight.
On April 29, employees of public transport continued their strike action. Protesters were opposed to a wage freeze and the privatization of state companies.
On May 31 in Lisbon, the capital of Portugal, 300 thousand people took part in a protest organized by a union.
In France, workers opposed the reform of the pension system, which provides for the gradual increase of retirement age from 60 to 62 years. Also expected was to increase over 10 years the payment of salaries of civil servants into the social security fund, and improving work performance required to obtain a full pension.
On February 4, railwaymen went on a 24-hour strike. More than a third of workers did not work. The railway employees demanded higher wages and opposed job cuts.
On February 23, French air traffic controllers went on strike to oppose the reduction in staff.
On 26 February, in the largest French ports, dockworkers went on strike, protesting against the privatization of companies.
On March 23 by call of the trade unions in protest against the austerity measures, hundreds of thousands of transport workers, education and communication workers did not turn up for work. Public transport, schools, kindergartens, a post office and state television went on strike. About 40-50% of teachers protesting against the education reform and massive cuts (this is not the first teachers' strike this year) supported the strike. Railway workers went on strike. Across the country, 177 demonstrations were held, which were attended by 800 thousand people.
On April 7, train services in France were once again disrupted because of an on-going strike by train drivers, the third this year.
On April 26, five trade unions for workers of the European aircraft group Airbus went on strike in France. The workers demanded higher wages and job creation.
On May 27, more than a million people took part in a nationwide strike organized by the six largest unions in the country. Employees of all branches and directions opposed the pension reform.
The strike, announced by French nurses-anaesthesiologists, was attended by about 80% of workers in operating theatres of French hospitals. In Paris, several hundred protesters stormed the Montparnasse station and blocked railway lines.
On June 15, over 20 thousand people, protesting against increasing the retirement age took to the streets of Paris.
On June 24, France was plunged into another nationwide strike. Civil servants and teachers took part. In Paris alone, the demonstration attracted 130 thousand people. Trade unions reported 120 thousand protesters in Marseille, 70 thousand protesters in Bordeaux, 60 thousand in Toulouse and 25 thousand in Lyon. There were a total of about two hundred such demonstrations.
On 1 July, France was on the verge of collapse because of the strike by transport workers. The trade unions of railways, aviation, subway and bus service opposed to pension reform took part in the strike.
In Italy, on March 12 there was a mass workers' strike in protest against the government's economic policy. In the largest cities in the country overground and underground transport stopped working, there was a reduced number of flights, and cancellation of trains was announced. Maritime transport was disrupted. In addition to the employees of urban and interurban transport, the strike involved employees of state structures, banks, savings banks, pharmacies, schools and hospitals.
The strikers demanded higher wages, and more favourable conditions.
On June 12, thousands of Italians took to the streets in Rome to protest against the austerity measures proposed by the government. 100 thousand people took part in the action.
On June 25, Italy held a nationwide strike. Workers opposed the government's decision to freeze salaries and pensions and to suspend a number of public projects.
In Britain, on February 5, a 24-hour strike by the London Underground took place, which marked the beginning of a series of similar protests.
On March 9 in Britain, a 48-hour general strike by civil servants took place, which was attended by tax officials and the courts, museums and libraries – in all about 200 thousand people. The strike was prompted the government's decision to reduce by one-third, compensation for dismissal. The event was one of the largest in the country recently.
On March 19, flight personnel of British airline British Airways after the failure of two weeks of talks with the airline began a three-day strike, supported by 80% of workers. Two-thirds of flights were cancelled. Workers were opposed to plans to cut 1,200 jobs and freeze wages for two years.
Mass strikes and manifestations by the working people, starting last Autumn, also affected Romania, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and other European countries.
With each passing day, militant resistance of the working class in all capitalist countries is growing. This dispels the myths of bourgeois capitalism's apologists and their sing-alongers - the revisionists, that in the capitalist countries there is no longer a working class and that it has lost its fighting qualities. Mass strikes and demonstrations in the spring and early summer of this year, rejects these assertions. And only the policy of "social partnership", conducted by the largest trade unions in Europe (which, under pressure from the workers and employees are forced to take action by the organizers of strikes), constrains the revolutionary energy of the masses.
Russian workers must take their cue from their class brothers abroad and move from local and fragmented actions to a nationwide political strike.
The general strike is a powerful weapon in the hands of the working class. The ruling class is afraid of nothing so much as a general political strike of workers, engineers, clerks, rallying the workers, fostering their class consciousness and fighting spirit, able to force the authorities to fulfil the demands of the people or to withdraw in shame, and acting as the main force of the revolutionary transformation of society – the socialist revolution, which alone has the power to abolish capitalism and to end all the misery and suffering of the working classes.

Chronicle produced edition of the newspaper "Hammer and Sickle” (Serp I Molot)

( FB-AUCPB Comment.. In fully agreeing with the above article of events, in Britain, we have also entered the age of harsh austerity. Instead of the IMF imposing austerity measures in return for loans or bailouts as in some other countries, we have Cameron and his Tory – Liberal cronies doing the job for the IMF. That is, imposing fierce austerity measures and swingeing cuts upon the working people who will have to bear the brunt and foot the bill for them under the cheap slogan “Big Society”. While the bankers are busy popping open their champagne bottles, “swallowing their pills at the same time” and “snorting their coke” in London’s Square Mile celebrating their recent profits, working and unemployed people have years of misery awaiting them, with the prospect of being thrown onto the streets, without a livelihood or home. We need to unify and resist the cuts and follow the Greek example….mass general strikes, week long ones if necessary, mass demonstrations and other militant actions on a continuous basis and force the Government to halt the cuts. The pro-Cameron populist slogan “Big Society” is nothing more than carving up, selling off to private companies, DIY private health care and education, botched services and more poverty for millions of people.

Together we can halt the process…together we can bury capitalism!
LET’S UNIFY! STRIKE! DEMONSTRATE! REVOLT! RIOT!
AND BLAST CAPITALISM FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH!

For Bolshevism-AUCPB

HUNDREDS OF FORGED HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PLACED INTO THE RUSSIAN STATE ARCHIVES

In the second half of May 2010, State Duma Deputy Viktor Ilyukhin was approached by way of a confidential oral statement by one of the leading fabricators of the forged "letter by Beria №794/B" concerning this person’s personal involvement in the fabrication of the forged letter. After verification of the information received, V.I. Ilyukhin sent two official letters to the leader of the Communist Party faction in the Duma, G.A. Zyuganov:-

Dear Gennadiy Andreyevich!
I am informing you, as the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) faction in the Duma (Russian lower house of parliament), that on May 25, 2010, I received a call from an unknown person, who asked to meet with me. He said that he can provide information in connection with the investigation into the deaths of the Polish officers in Katyn. This meeting was held on the same day.
The unknown person gave me his name, and in the interests of his security I will not disclose it. He said that he has a direct bearing on the fabrication and forgery of archival documents, including the shooting of Polish prisoners.
From his statements it follows that in the early 1990-s, a group was set up and made up of senior experts on the forging of archival documents relating to important events of the Soviet period. The group worked within the Security Service of the Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Geographically, it was housed in the premises of the former summer residences (dachas) of employees of the Central Committee of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) in the village of Nagorny. The work by the group members was well paid, they received food parcels.
He, in particular, reported that they had fabricated a letter by L. Beria to the Politburo of the CPSU (b) from March 1940, in which he proposes the shooting of over 20 thousand Polish prisoners of war. He also demonstrated the mechanism for the forging of the signatures of Beria and Stalin (I enclose copies of the sheets). I do not rule out that the Polish government had also been given false documents on the so-called Katyn affair.
He said that his group fabricated a letter by Shelepin to Khrushchev on March 3, 1959. Col. Klimov took direct participation in the writing of the text.
According to him, in Nagorny the group was supplied with a necessary order, which could be a text for the document which they had to produce, or a text supplied to them to place into an existing archival document, or produce a text or text-signature of a public official.
According to his information, the group of individuals who worked on the semantic content of the draft texts allegedly included the former head of Rosarkhiv (Russian Archives) Pikhoya and Mikhail Poltoranin, closely linked to the first Russian president. G.Rogozin, First deputy head of Presidential Security was also named.
The group worked in the village of Nagorny until 1996, then it was moved to the locality of Zarechye.
He knows that employees of the 6-th Institute (Molchanov) of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces worked with archival documents in similar fashion.
He claims that, into the Russian archives in this period were placed hundreds of fake historical documents, and a same number of documents that had been falsified by putting distorted information into them, as well as forging signatures. In confirmation of this, the person has submitted a number of forms from the 1940-s, as well as fake impressions of stamps and signatures, etc. He has promised to submit additional materials. At the same time, he stated that he often has a feeling of irony at the public perception of certain archival documents as being valid, although the group of people "had a hand" in their falsification.
Dear Gennady Andreyevich, I think that this story does indeed have an ounce of truth in it. Let me refer to, for example, that Russian scientists, in particular, Doctor of Historical Sciences M. Meltyukhov have already proven “Lenin’s Testament” to be a falsification, along with documents relating to the abdication of Nicholas II along with other similar facts.
The question is more than important. It has to do with the utter discrediting of the importance of Russian archives where these documents are stored, and most importantly with the discrediting of our country's history.
Work on the study of this problem should continue, and we should bring our academic historians into this process.
I believe is still too early to put the issue before the Russian government.
Reported to you for your consideration.
V.I. Ilyukhin
26 May 2010

Dear Gennady Andreyevich!
In addition to my note of May 26, 2010, I hereby announce that I continue to liaise with the person who had declared his involvement in the falsification of archival documents relating to the Soviet period.
They were presented with, as he claims, archive case of Spetsfond (Special fund) № 29 Volume 7 "Correspondence by the NKGB - NKVD with the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) in the period from 02/01/1941 to 05/05/1941, “About Germany’s preparations for war against the USSR” (fund 9). The case is made up of 202 sheets of paper, bound on August 30, 1944. On the cover are the following notes: "Keep archived forever. Not subject to declassification".
In his statement, this archival work got into his hands in connection with his participation in the early 1990-s, in the work of a group of experts on forging historical documents. Access to archival materials for them was free. Many of the documents were brought to the village of Nagorny without any accounting and control over their movement. The receipt of the documents was not recorded and there were no obligations on how they were to be stored.
In the case, the 202 sheets of correspondence with Stalin, the memoranda of the leaders of the NKVD, NKGB of the USSR, Ukraine, border services, as well as some guidance notes really were bound. This volume was removed from the archive, according to the source, with one purpose, to put in it a prepared in the early 90-s memorandum on behalf of the People's Commissar of Defence of the USSR Marshal Timoshenko, the Chief of General Staff of the Red Army, General Zhukov. Architect of the memorandum was Major-General Vasilevsky.
The notes really are on the case sheets with serial numbers 0072-0081, marked "Top Priority", "Top Secret", dated March 11, 1941.
The notes provide an assessment of the political situation in Europe, with proposals to pay special attention to the defence of our (Soviet) western borders. It is noted that on the side of Germany in the war against the Soviet Union may be involved, Finland, Romania, Hungary and other allies of Hitler. A report is given of our military units in the West, with proposals for their reinforcement.
The source stated that in the same order, in the case was included yet another memorandum addressed to Stalin, signed by the same previously-mentioned persons on April 4, 1941 (№ 961), placed in the case under sequence numbers 0109-0115.
The note describes the numerical composition of the German troops deployed near the borders of the USSR. It suggests that Hitler might start a war against the Soviet Union "in the foreseeable future," the time of the start of the war "from the next two months to a year”. At the same time it proposes measures for the deployment of Soviet troops and waging war on enemy territory.
The source explained that these two forged documents (memoranda), to his knowledge, were prepared mainly by military experts of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, most likely, as he understood, to raise the credibility and relevance of the Joint Staff of the Red Army.
I shall give a different viewpoint.
In my opinion, the fakes were made with a view to further discredit Stalin, and it was done in line with that rabid propaganda campaign of slandering the Soviet leadership, which is very cynical and frankly was conducted in the early 90-s, and with sophistication continues today. The falsifiers of historical facts by content of the "memos" tried to instil the fact that Stalin was aware of the situation on the western borders of the USSR and about the actual preparations for an attack, but he simply ignored the opinion of the General Staff. That is why the Red Army and the country as a whole suffered such great losses in the first two years of war.
In support of my version about the possible legalization of false documents, I here inform you that the memo on March 11, 1941 was published in the Collection of Documents "Organs of State Security of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War”, Vol 1, Book Two, pp. 49-54, publisher A/O “Books and Business” Moscow 1995, published by the Academy of Federal Counterintelligence Service (now the FSB) of the Russian Federation
Communication with the source all the more reinforces my belief in the truth of much of his information about the falsification of documents on historical events of great importance, but I think by far, he has not spoken about many other false documents.
I think it is now appropriate to start drafting a formal statement of the Central Committee (Presidium) of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation on the falsification of archival historical documents.
VI Ilyukhin
28 May 2010
------------------------------------------------------

DEDICATED TO TODAY'S MENSHEVIKS AND OPPORTUNISTS

Abstracts from lectures by Stalin “ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF LENINISM"(Works, vol.6)

"... By whom and where has it been proven that the parliamentary form of struggle is the main form of struggle of the proletariat? Does not the history of the revolutionary movement show that the parliamentary struggle is only a school and help to organize the outside-parliamentary struggle of the proletariat, that the main issues of the labour movement under capitalism are solved by force, by the direct struggle of the proletarian masses, their general strike, their revolt? "
"The dictatorship of the proletariat can not arise as a result of the peaceful development of bourgeois society and bourgeois democracy - it can only arise as a result of breaking the bourgeois state machine, the bourgeois army, the bourgeois bureaucracy, bourgeois politics."
“The deadly sin of the II International was not that it overestimated the importance of these forms (parliamentary forms of struggle - editor.), considering them almost the only forms, but when the period came for open revolutionary struggles and the question of outside-parliamentary forms of struggle became primary, the parties of the II International turned away from these new challenges and did not adopt them."
"For the reformist, the reform is everything - revolutionary work is not so important, it’s for conversation, a diversion. Therefore, the reform in the reformist tactics in the conditions of bourgeois rule inevitably becomes an instrument of strengthening that authority and into an instrument of contraction of the revolution. For the revolutionary though, on the contrary, the main thing is revolutionary work, and not reform – for him, reforms are a by-product of revolution. Therefore, the reform with revolutionary tactics in the conditions of bourgeois rule, of course, becomes an instrument of break-up of this power and an instrument for strengthening the revolution, a base for further development of the revolutionary movement.
The revolutionary accepts a reform in order to use it as an aid in combining legal and illegal work, in order to use it as a cover for illegal work for the revolutionary preparation of the masses for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.
This is the essence of revolutionary use of reforms and agreements in the conditions of imperialism.
The reformist, on the contrary, will accept reforms in order to renounce all illegal work and to undermine the work of preparing the masses for revolution under the cover (bestowed) of reform. This is the essence of reformist tactics."
"Defending the II International against attacks, Kautsky says that the parties of the II International are an instrument of peace rather than war and that is why they were not able to do anything serious in the war, in the period of revolutionary actions by the proletariat. That is quite true. But what does this mean? This means that the parties of the II International were unfit for the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, that they are not militant parties of the proletariat leading the workers to power, but an election machine adapted for parliamentary elections and the parliamentary struggle. Actually, this explains the fact that during the dominance of opportunists in the II International, the main political organization of the proletariat was not a party, but a parliamentary faction.”
"To think that new tasks can be performed by the forces of the old social-democratic parties brought up in the peaceful environment of parliamentarism – means to condemn oneself to hopeless despair and inevitable defeat."
"The party must stand in front of the working class, it must see further than the working class, it must lead the proletariat, and not drag along behind in the wake of spontaneity.”
"The working class without a revolutionary party – is an army without a headquarters. The Party is the headquarters of the proletariat.”

(Comment….this is something the communists in Britain needs study and to act on.


RECORD OF THE LABOUR MOVEMENT IN RUSSIA
(June 25 - July 15, 2010)

At Volkswagen, welders refused to work

On June 25 at 14:00, the welders in the body shop, in accordance with Article 379 of the Russian Labour Code, refused to perform work in connection with the threat to their lives and health, reports the press service of the MPRA.
On this day, thermometers installed in the coachwork shop, recorded a temperature of over 31° C, in some areas over 32° C.
The fact of the high temperature was recorded as an act of violation of labour protection requirements, but the immediate supervisor of the workers - the section chief Fitsukov refused to sign it. At the same time, engineer on health and safety S. Osipov assured the workers that the thermometer readings did not correspond to reality. In his words, the real temperature in the shop, which is recorded by electronic sensors did not exceed 28 ° C. He provided management with this figure, but the workers did not succumb to the exhortations and threats by head Fitsukov, and refused to work.
In turn, management in negotiations with union representatives of MPRA over the incident referred to earlier agreements with the union that in the case of excess air temperature above 28 ° C, the employees were entitled to a paid break - 5 minutes of every working hour. In response, union representatives took a hard line, indicating that the refusal to work was because of the threat to life and health and is a legitimate right of the workers themselves, and no agreement could change that or worsen it. Workers themselves are free to decide whether or not to refuse to work in the event of a threat to their lives and health, and the union should not persuade them to start working if such a threat actually exists.
Meanwhile, during negotiations, the workers of the body shop, not yielding to the threats of the authorities, successfully stood their ground until the end of the day.

Employees at Petrovsky distillery have suspended their hunger strike

In the village of Petrovsky in Ivanovo region from 28 June to Friday 1 July, 30 workers at the main distillery enterprise were on hunger strike. They demanded the repayment of wages arrears, reported IA "ICD".
There are currently pay arrears to workers at Petrovsky distillery amounting to about 20 million rubles. In 2009, the entire workforce was sacked – 1200 people. After that, about 350 people were again employed. Workers were forced to take an extreme measure - a hunger strike.
They set up at the plant five tents and began a hunger strike. The workers shouted “"OST” Group to account", "We are not slaves!".
On Wednesday June 30, the governor of the region, Mikhail Men visited them. With him involved in the negotiations were leadership of the regional Duma, heads of districts and shareholders of the plant. As a result of negotiations, the parties arrived at the opinion that the assets of the plant should be transferred from federal to regional ownership or ownership to state joint stock company “Rosspiritprom”.
After meeting with the hunger strikers, the governor flew to Moscow and returned to Ivanovo with a promise to pay off the wage arrears by July 22. After consultation, the protesters decided to suspend the hunger strike until July 22, with a warning: that if arrears are not be settled by that date, the hunger strike will be resumed.

Workers went on strike at the Cheboksary Aggregate Works

At the Cheboksary Aggregate Works workers’ unrest began, reported IA REGNUM news. Due to the delay of wages at the foundry a spontaneous strike took place. According to plant workers, they were on strike for two days - 29 and 30 June. The reason being the delay in wages, the last salary being paid for the month of April, and then only 40% of the wage was paid. On June 30, the foundry workshop stood idle for the first half of the working day. After negotiations and promises by the factory administration to pay the salaries, work resumed.

Tomsk ball-bearing factory workers went on hunger strike
For 7 days (from 1 July) continued the hunger strike by workers of the Tomsk bearing plant, reported IA "ICD". 11 workers at OAO “Tomsk Podshipnik” demanded the management of the company return the multi-million dollar wage debt. The total amount of debt is 48 million rubles, some employees of the company are owed more than a hundred thousand rubles. Protesters occupied one of the factory premises, and they were not going to end their hunger strike or leave the building until their demands were met.
Today, (at time of writing) there was information that the owner of the plant S. Magazev said that the money to pay off the wage debt to the workers had been found. At the same time, the strikers rejected the proposal by vice-director A. Simakovicha about a partial (70%) repayment of debt. The owner expected to receive the money to repay debts owed, by selling property and equipment of the plant, as well as other assets of the company. The plant, which stopped production a long time ago, is actually being destroyed.

South-Ural metallurgists held a rally at Alexandrinsky mining company

On July 6 in Nagaybaksky district of Chelyabinsk region, a mass rally was held against cuts and for higher salaries, according to GTRC “Southern Urals”. To the entrance of the Alexandrinsky mining company with placards and banners arrived its workers and trade unions of a few large companies in the region.
Since 2008, according to the union, wages have fallen by almost half. At the same time wages are not rising, the collective agreement, the signing of which was carried out, the workers say, has not been implemented.
But miners did not turn up at the rally. The protesters explained: they simply could not – the exit out of the mine was blocked by a car. So only those who work on the surface were able to reach the plant entrance.
Together with the Alexandrinsky workers, metallurgists of other enterprises came with placards in their hands and. They came from CMP, CMI, Satka "magnesite” and “Bakalskoe Ore" - they are united into one mining-metallurgical union of Russia.
The protesters promise that their general struggle will not end. They will continue to insist on their legitimate demands being met. People say they are ready to take extreme measures: i.e. to stop production, which means, to strike.

Orsk: WSorkers at "Sintezspirit" held a picket

On July 10, 2010 at Komsomolskaya Square in Orsk a picket was held by employees of the “Sintezspirit" plant, said www.ural56.ru.
Union of employees of Orsk, chairman Constantine Botuz explained that the reason for the picket was due to failure by the employers to implement tariff agreements: the company did not pay the full sum of money to the workers. And this was confirmed by the checks carried out by prosecutors.
According to the protesters, it is necessary to overcome fear of dismissal and protest and only then, the employer will be compelled obliged to respect the rights of workers.

Employees of the “Chita” construction company went on strike

Employees of the companies operating in the Trans-Baikal region in construction, on July 12, stopped work and went on strike, reports Zabmedia.ru. The reason was the failure to pay wages for several months.
"Many of us have not received full pay since December 2009. All the time we are paid in small sums of 4-5 thousand rubles a month. I am owed only a very little sum in comparison with the rest, in all 34 thousand. But even this money is not enough to feed a whole family ", - one of the employees told the correspondent of IA"Zabmedia".
According to him, work was stopped on major construction projects in Chita. Also, the company operates in Calga, Aga, Gas-Zavodski areas Duldurge, Argun.
According to the interviewer of IA “Zabmedia”, the company employees collected signatures and sent a statement about what is happening to the prosecutor's office, after which the employer promised to pay them their owed salaries by the end of that week.


KOREAN FRIENDSHIP ASSOCIATION (KFA)
The Korean Friendship Association(KFA) was founded in November 2000 with the purpose of building international ties with the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.It has several thousand members from 120 different countries.
The KFA has full recognition from the government of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea and is the world-wide leading organisation of its supporters.
The KFA recieves official information from Pyongyang and is in contact with the Korean Committee For Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries and the Korean Commitee For Solidarity with the World People.

The Main Objectives of the KFA are:
Show the reality of the DPR Korea to the world
Defend the independence and socialist construction in the DPR of Korea
Learn from the culture and history of the Korean People
Work for the peaceful unification of the Korean peninsula
Comrade Kim Jong Il leader of the Korean people said
“our Republic has been established and developed as a genuine country of the people, as a Juche-oriented socialist country, the first of its kind in history, and our people, who were oppressed and maltreated for centuries, have become able to enjoy, in the embrace of the Republic, the pride and happiness of a genuine life in which they exercise full rights as masters of the State and society.....
Our Republic, which incorporates the great Juche idea in its State building and State activities, is a people-centered socialist country in which the people are regarded as God, an independent socialist State with a strong Juche character and national identity, and an invincible socialist power that prevails over any enemy, however formidable”

DEFEND THE DPRK!
JOIN THE KOREAN FRIENDSHIP ASSOCIATION
WWW.KOREA-DPR.COM
EMAIL KOREA@KOREA-DPR.COM OR UK@KOREA-DPR.COM

Supporters of the AUCPB (All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks) can visit the FOR BOLSHEVISM-AUCPB website at http://aucpbenglishwebsite.blogspot.com

Join the online supporters group / discussion forum For BolshevismAUCPB by e-mail at http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/ForBolshevismAUCPB

or email: zabolsh@yahoo.co.uk

Russian AUCPB website address: vkpb.ru
FIGHTING FUND – Comrades and Supporters of the AUCPB and Subscribers to "FOR BOLSHEVISM INSIDE THE COMMUNIST AND WORKERS' MOVEMENT" and other material of the AUCPB, please make a donation towards the further publication of AUCPB material translated into English from Russian by sending donations to our fighting fund account "FOR SOLIDARITY WITH WORKERS OF THE EX-USSR" sort code 30-93-60, Account Number: 02312361 (Lloyds TSB).
Many thanks to all our comrades and supporters for their material support!

--
Posted By -- to WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!